Talk:2019 Pulwama attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reactions

This section could and should be condensed down into a couple of sentences. As a tertiary source, we should summarise secondary sources, not quote them, especially when the material quoted is so very mundane. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done that. Please let's try to keep it this way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Request : To make use of MARTYRED instead of KILLED for the CRPF Personnel. Pundareekaksh (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't use value-laden labels. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"Two" personnels were martyred from TAMILNADU... Not"one" Catherine Bertini (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

In the opening para - please add the following refs:
Refs -

• India Today
• The Times of India
  

These are National Dailies in India and should be referenced along with the BBC source.
Moreover @Kautilya3: please remove the footnote you have added to the CRPF line in the first paragraph (footnote a) because it doesn't make any sense. The CRPF article is already linked and thus a footnote is not required to tell the reader what CRPF is. 47.30.212.255 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you are contesting my edit, I will let somebody else handle the edit request.

The footnote on CRPF is well-sourced from a security expert. You haven't explained why it supposedly "doesn't make any sense". The footnote states what one needs to know about the body in the context of this article. It is also necessary because there is plenty of misinformation in the news media as well as other places on Wikipedia, which claims that "soldiers" have been killed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I understand @Kautilya3:, perhaps the language can be improved in that case. I am not an expert but somehow felt that it didn't seem right. So for the time being until someone suggests something better, we'll leave the footnote as it is. Thanks and Regards 47.30.212.255 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And if not an issue to you, please look at the refs as well. 47.30.212.255 (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have added the India Today citation. We don't WP:CITEKILL the lead unless there are contentious issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

Here is the complete list of the martyred CRPF jawans:

1. Head Constable Awadhesh Kumar Yadav (Uttar Pradesh)
2. Head Constable Ram Vakeel (Uttar Pradesh)
3. Constable Mahesh Kumar (Uttar Pradesh)
4. Constable Pradeep Kumar (Uttar Pradesh)
5. Constable Koushal Kumar Rawat (Uttar Pradesh)
6. Constable Pradeep Singh (Uttar Pradesh)
7. Constable Shyam Babu (Uttar Pradesh)
8. Constable Ajit Kumar Azad (Uttar Pradesh)
9. Constable Ramesh Yadav (Uttar Pradesh)
10. Constable Pankaj Kumar Tripathi (Uttar Pradesh)
11. Constable Amit Kumar (Uttar Pradesh)
12. Constable Vijay Kr. Mourya (Uttar Pradesh)
13. Head Constable Narayan Lal Gurjar (Rajasthan)
14. Head Constable Hemraj Meena (Rajasthan)
15. Constable Rohitash Lamba (Rajasthan)
16. Constable Bhagirath Singh (Rajasthan)
17. Constable Jeet Ram (Rajasthan)
18. Head Constable Jaimal Singh (Punjab)
19. Constable Sukhjinder Singh (Punjab)
20. Constable Kulwinder Singh (Punjab)
21. Constable Maninder Singh Attri (Punjab)
22. Head Constable Sanjay Rajput (Maharashtra)
23. Constable Rathod Nitin Shivaji (Maharashtra)
24. Head Constable Bablu Santra (West Bengal)
25. Constable Sudeep Biswas (West Bengal)
26. Constable Sivachandran (Tamil Nadu)
27. Constable Subramaniam G (Tamil Nadu)
28. Constable Virendra Singh (Uttarakhand)
29. Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal (Uttarakhand)
30. Head Constable Sanjay Kumar Sinha (Bihar)
31. Constable Ratan Kumar Thakur (Bihar)
32. Head Constable PK Sahoo (Odisha)
33. Constable Manoja Kumar Behera (Odisha)
34. Head Constable Naseer Ahmad (Jammu and Kashmir)
35. Constable Tilak Raj (Himachal Pradesh)
36. Head Constable Vijay Soreng (Jharkhand)
37. Constable Vasantha Kumar VV (Kerala)
38. Constable GD Guru H (Karnataka)
39. Constable Ashvni Kumar Kaochi (Madhya Pradesh)
40. Head Constable Maneswar Bsumatari (Assam)

223.230.77.40 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't include names of victims unless they are notable figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The list of people killed should be included in a new section as it is done on most other articles of terrorism. I can provide the sources if they are required. 47.30.227.234 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List added by someone is hidden as per above comment.-Nizil (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the Introduction

Please consider changing the first sentence from "...was attacked by a vehicle-bound suicide bomber at Lethpora (near Awantipora) in the Pulwama district,..." to "...was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber at Lethpora (near Awantipora) in the Pulwama district,...". This is a grammatical edit and assumes that the intent of the text was to indicate the mode of attack, not that the attacker was destined to hit the bus or that the attacker was physically tied or shackled in the attacking vehicle. Emphasis for identification only. Malchemist (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)  Done Good point. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

International Reactions

International reactions by Heads of the states, Ambassadors, High Commissioner, External Affairs Ministers etc to international/transnational issues are needed to be noted in detail. They should not be briefed up in one or two lines. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 04:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• There are over 100 reactions, that's why they need to be in brief and summarised.  MehrajMir (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There may be hundreds; Since they are the reactions of various Nations they are all valid to be noted separately in detail. See here, Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaikunda Raja (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• That is a separate article on reactions. Same one can also be created here to include the reactions in detail.  MehrajMir (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mehrajmir13: That and other such [reaction] articles were WP:SPINOUT after they got too big for the articles not before it. The same shall be done here if that's the case. Gotitbro (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vaikunda Raja: Even that article has been tagged with {{Quotefarm}}. If one article is in a bad state, we don't bring every article down to the same level. WP:LONGQUOTE is quite clear that quotes should be avoided and that they are not a replacement for concise text. —Gazoth (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth:

1. Then what about this article, Reactions to the September 11 attacks. This article too is over quoted?

2. I think I am repeating again; 1. Sections regarding International reactions by Heads of the states, Ambassadors, High Commissioner, External Affairs Ministers etc to transnational events (especially while condemning a terrorist attack) naturally includes quotations. It may also come in hundreds since there are around 200 sovereign nations. So their reactions shall only be presented that way. This is not about some non-notable regional/local events about which every Tom, Dick & Harry's opinions summed-up with in one sentence or two. This a Transnational Terrorist attack to which over 50 Head of the states/Nations Opinion-ed on. So the notability issue is not entering here.

3. Regarding the revert edits: I follow the manual of style for this section as followed here, here&here. The reverts made by other users here (against the edits made by me which is inline with the current procedures) is what to be questioned. But instead the unconventional proceedings of others are promoted. Again, no other users began the discussion in talk page; they simply reverted my edits repeatedly, and forced me to began the discussion in the talk page. It's very much unfortunate that these simple and vivid logic is needed to be defended by me with such detail; However I started the discussion and making my points crystal clear from the very initial moment. Till now not sure, why these things are not heard. ON THE OTHER HAND, I am being summoned using the 3 Revert-rule simply because they have the numbers. 4 people X 2 revert (each) = 8 reverts, NOT A 3RR violation BUT 1 person X 3 reverts = 3 revert, a 3RR Violation. ARE WE A DIRECT AND FORTHRIGHT DEMOCRACY without substantiating the merit of logic ?

4. After all, SEE before my reply here, the revert is already made, without the patience for getting my point, by probably a 4th person! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 08:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vaikunda Raja: Your examples are either tagged with {{Quotefarm}} or are paraphrased to avoid direct quotes and conflict with WP:LONGQUOTE. The point of this article is not to record everyone's reactions. It should only be included if it adds to a reader's understanding. Repetitive quotes do not do that. If your edits are being reverted by four editors, it is your responsibility to discuss and obtain consensus on talk page. You do not have any special right to keep your preferred version while the discussion is happening. —Gazoth (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: How is this any different from 2016 Uri attack, Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, Reactions to the September 11 attacks etc. which contain similar quotes [or any other terrorism related articles]? Surely quotes can be avoided but I don't see why the reaction section should be any different from the other articles. If it needs to be changed in all articles then this is not the place to discuss it. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Your examples are either tagged with {{Quotefarm}} or are paraphrased to avoid direct quotes and as a result, do not conflict with WP:LONGQUOTE. Two of those articles are reactions only articles, and thus do not have any WP:PROPORTION concerns. Vaikunda Raja was proposing to add full quotes of every single national leader that reacted to this attack, which would overwhelm the rest of the text. Once again, if some other article is in a bad state, we do not bring every article down with it. You have to make a policy-based argument to keep this text, instead of trying to find other articles that are written in your preferred style. —Gazoth (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

When did I say that whole quotes need to be added and I am not selectively looking for articles (of which a whole category exists). I was just saying the clearly followed structure and format of such sections needs to be followed. As for the WP:Wikilawering not everything needs to have policies and the precedent is pretty clear here. Anyway I am not going to be engaged with this article further. Gotitbro (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You said it with your actions by restoring the full quotes. Quoting examples of other articles is a circular argument and doesn't make any sense. —Gazoth (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the standard reaction section as it was before. @Vaikunda Raja: Please shorten/summarize the quotes and remove Wikipedia:Disambiguation links from the reactions. Also have a look at this article Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden for structuring/other details. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:, I am yet to complete the listing; And soon I am looking into shorten/summarize the quotes and other issues, Thanks, - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 08:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Gotitbro

@Gotitbro:, the section "Reactions" from the article 2019 Pulwama attack was removed and new article was created with the title Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack, please take a look. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC

The newly created article Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack by stripping off the contents from the section International Reactions should be deleted; Otherwise, also consider seperate articles for Background of 2019 Pulwama attack, Investigation of 2019 Pulwama attack and Aftermath of 2019 Pulwama attack.

@Gotitbro:, See, again some other users doing the same thing as earlier in a completely different way; Now this new user has another 3+ REVERTS privileage. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vaikunda Raja: [Moving to the article Talk] Yes, looks like someone has hastily created a new article. I have nominated it for deletion. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro and Vaikunda Raja: Both of you are engaged in an edit war. Please calm down and let a third person mediate. I am putting up {{Admin help}} to resolve this. Please stop reverting each others edits continuously. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Moreover when you are filing an AFD, please let it reach a consensus before reacting. You have been repeatedly tagging and reverting edits by saying that "it has been discussed on talk page"^{See below}. Please wait for either discussions to reach a common consensus. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@119.82.70.109: It was my mistake I should've waited for AFD to be completed, I apologize for that (@Abductive:). And I am not engaged in an edit war with Vaikunda and I never put out an edit summary that said "it has been discussed on talk page". Gotitbro (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vaikunda Raja: Again this has been done. Please wait for the AFD to reach aa consensus, then you can add/remove the Reactions section. Why are you adding/removing it again and again? @Gotitbro: I am sorry for having misread your edit summary, please ignore that comment. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In case anybody is wondering why there is such a visceral hatred of Reaction sections, let me list a few reasons. One, they are too long for their articles. Two, they are composed of politician-speak boilerplate platitudes and are uninteresting. Three, they often rely on primary sources. Four, they use flagicons, which people hate with a passion. Five, they often name spokespeople as if anybody cares what the name of the spokesperson for some random country is. Six, they represent a way for one ethnoreligious group to play victim and have all their friends chime in. Abductive (reasoning) 11:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Abductive. There is no place for a long list of platitudes with little flag icons beside them. What does that achieve? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Article fully protected for two days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, please restored to old version before the dispute as I had added some useful undisputed information which is reverted. Old version diff to new version. As article is full protected, I am unable to revert.-Nizil (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it's a pain, but this is to stop the reverting and edit warring. There needs to be a consensus here on the talk page before any edits get made. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A reason why the partial blocks will be such a nice feature..... ∯WBG^converse 15:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, can you unprotect? ∯WBG^converse 12:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me figure out how to institute 1RR. There's some bureaucracy involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I figure it out later if more edit wars start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, there is loads of vandalism and POV editing from unregistered users. If you do institute 1RR, it has to be coupled with semi-protection. Otherwise, you are likely to see only vandalism left! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is an exemption to edit warring. But, yeah, 1RR would probably require some kind of protection to mitigate the ongoing disrupton. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You just have to log it on AELOG and add an editnotice. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 February 2019

Change death count in infobox from 40 to 41, the format is generally 41 (40 CRPF personnel + 1 suicide bomber). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Suicide bombers are not human they are monsters they dont need to be calculated Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done page unprotected so request is no longer necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 February 2019

Please add below to reactions. Rahul Gandhi is the president of INC , his reaction is important.

Rahul Gandhi said that he and his Congress party would support the government and would "not get into any other discussion for the next couple of days".

2607:FEA8:6A0:44D:898D:64E9:2B6F:F5C6 (talk) Indian 2607:FEA8:6A0:44D:898D:64E9:2B6F:F5C6 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reactions of Opposion leaders are generally not noted in these sections. 47.30.210.250 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 February 2019

In aftermath section, request to change "Kashmiri students were attacked in Dehradun by Bajrang Dal and Viswa Hindu Parishad" to "Kashmiri students were allegedly attacked in Dehradun by Bajrang Dal and Viswa Hindu Parishad" or be removed completely. Both the sources supporting this used "allegedly" in their prose as well as headlines. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it better be deleted as CRPF and Uttarakhand Police have denied such attacks and have requested through their official verified twitter handles to not spread such rumours of attacks on Kashmiri students. Ref here: Do NOT circulate fake news saying Kashmiri students are being harassaed: CRPF §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• It appears to me that there was some kind of sloganeering and display of intimidation tactic from Bajrang Dal and VHP. Indian Express has verified this. Do you have a better way to represent this line. I don't think this should be removed entirely, even the ToI link shared by you state that "some people" shouting slogans had come to disturb them.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... So you may rephrase to "slogannering" or such.... On a longer run for article's overall encyclopedic nature dunno how this whole line would anyways fall under recentism or trivial; especially when all things are being alleged only. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done page unprotected so request isn't necessary. Also, do remember discussion and consideration of the precise wording should be held before making a request not after. Requests should be a specific request that is uncontroversial (either simple changes or with an existing consensus). Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 February 2019

REMOVE: (It is widely accepted among security analysts that Jaish-e-Mohammed is the creation of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which continues to provide it backing.)

REASON:

i. It is UNDUE.

ii. It is IRRELEVANT to Reactions section.

iii. The references date back to 2016 and the sentence is clearly added to project a POV. How can one use three year old references to support something like: "continues to provide it backing"? 39.57.237.50 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• You haven't explained why it is UNDUE.
• The relevance is clear. It forms the rationale for why India is blaming Pakistan.
• It is reliably sourced to established scholars. There is no bar on the time of publication. If there are newer reliable sources that contradict the information, please provide them, and they can be discussed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Give proper proof on your statement

• all world know that jaish-e-mohammed supported by pakisthan and supported by ISI it is universal truth so idont need to proof it Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make such a statement. In any case, the answer to the edit request is  Not done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 February 2019

ADD to the beginning of Background section:

Since 1989, Kashmiris have been fighting for a merger with Pakistan or an independent Kashmir.

ADD to Reactions section:

The New York Times has said that "the nature of ... bombing suggests the insurgency is adapting and becoming more homegrown". It added that the "insurgency ... may have taken on a life of its own, as Kashmiris become more disenfranchised and angry" at the Indian government and its use of force. According to NYT, "many Kashmiris loathe the paramilitary unit, viewing it as an occupying force recruited from across India to suppress them". 39.57.237.50 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the beginning of the Background section should mention the root cause of the conflict which started wayback in 1947. The present armed struggle is going on since 1989 as per the sources.  MehrajMir (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't expect Wikipedia to decide the "root causes" of conflicts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not as expecting from anyone to decide on anything. It's about the content and the relevancy of the Background section and please do not through comments out of the context.  MehrajMir (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• In case I forgot to mention. If multiple reliable sources agree that background dates back to 1947 then we can consider including a few sentences about the incident. Indeed WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:OR needs to be kept in mind. My previous replies only echoed that many readers unaware of this conflict must be reading this page and some details about background maybe necessary if supported by reliable sources.  MehrajMir (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Then you need to make a proposal based on reliable sources and generate consensus, not newspaper histories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done the page is now unprotected so this edit request isn't necessary. I'd note that this doesn't seem to meet the "Is your request uncontroversial?" requirement anyway since it doesn't seem to be either uncontroversial or have an existing consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• No need to start with these lines Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Please update the article. 4 more CRPF men killed, death toll rises 49. — Bukhari (Talk!) 06:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose User:BukhariSaeed this is a separate incident that happened today in the same region ? why do you think this incident needs a mention here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 06:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: separate incident. unless a clear link is established between the incident from today and this suicide bombing, it cannot be added into this article DBigXrayᗙ 06:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a separate incident that happened today in the Pinglena Village, Pulwama.— Bukhari (Talk!) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone has added it to the article. I make no comment on whether it belongs in the article itself, but it definitely doesn't belong in the infobox without major revision of it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

People keep changing the infobox ignoring that the article says 40 in both the lead and in the attack section in two places namely the description and the table of states of origin. If people are going to change this, they need to provide sources (the infobox has no sources because it doesn't really need them as the sources are in the article) and ideally they should update everything rather than just one place. I made a quick check to try and see if the death toll had really changed but frankly what I found is a mess. Some old sources do say 44. But other sources from the same time say 40. I know next to nothing about the quality of Indian sources, but do know for these sort of things, whether they happen in the US, India, UK, France, Germany, Pakistan or whatever, early death tolls tends to be messy with double counting etc often happening. If the consensus is that it's 44 or 45, please find quality sources supporting this. Preferably multiple and recent. Any source which talks about the death toll in the region is clearly not what we want. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• User:BukhariSaeed There were more updates on this incident, yesterday Indian Army did a press conference and clarified that this incident was indeed related to the suicide bombing suspect. Accordingly I have struck off my oppose comment, Please feel free to include this information into the article, if it is not done already. Thanks. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  User:DBigXray done— Bukhari (Talk!) 08:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

Lot of information can be added in this section like:

1. Major rank officer martyred during defusing IED next day.
2. During encounter 5 Indian army soldiers killed, two militant also killed including JeM commander Gazi.
3. Ban of Pakistani performers in Indian cinema.
4. Telecast of Pakistan Super league is suspended by Dsports network.
5. Indian hackers hacked 200 Pakistan government website.
6. Security and facilities drawn back of Hurriyat leader and separatists in Kashmir.

Reliable references are covering all stories. Sumit Singh ^T 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you prefer separate subsections or everything in this single section?  MehrajMir (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As we already doing. Sumit Singh ^T 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Background Section

@Nil Einne: and @FR30799386: There are many neutral sources out there which talk about the background and the subject itself at the same time such as WashingtonPost and Dawn. My suggestion is we revert this edit and add these sources inline. After reading this source there seems no correlation either between the incidents mentioned in the start of the background section.  MehrajMir (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And, please don't ignore sources like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir#Reasons for the insurgency does a decent job of explaining the various factors behind the Kashmir insurgency. If somebody can summarise it in a sentence or two, that can be used as the background. Some background regarding Jaish-e-Mohammed will also be necessary, but perhaps not a dry list of the past attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ban on artists

This requires a mention here. The prohibition on Pakistani actors has been made compulsory. Source: Khaleej Times [1]. 2.51.20.34 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 here. —Gazoth (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The number of deaths was changed from 41 to 50 in this edit. It looks like this change was made by a vandalism-only account. Before I block this account, this is vandalism, right? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, yes, it is vandalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, I haven't look at the other edits but I wouldn't be so sure from that edit. As I mentioned above there seem to be a lot of different sources with a lot of different figures. See e.g. [2] [3] [4] which quote 49. (50 includes the attacker.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, having look some of of the other edits, I'm inclined to think this is vandalism even if it could have been just another random good faith death toll update from something the person had read or heard somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to assume good faith from someone who does such overt vandalism in other edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Shah Mahmood Qureshi condemned the bombing

According to Dawn, "Qureshi condemned the bombing..."[5]. Therefore this should be in the article.Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"Source says nothing of the sort"

Gazoth reverted an edit, saying "Source says nothing of the sort"[6]

The edit in question added:

[United States] also urged Pakistan to cooperate with the investigation and punish those responsible.

The source[7] says:

Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino told reporters on Tuesday..."We urge Pakistan to fully cooperate with the investigation into the attack and to punish anyone responsible."

The edit in question also added:

Pakistan said it was ready to cooperate with such an investigation.

The source[8] says:

[Pakistani PM Imran] Khan said in a recorded statement, adding that Islamabad was ready to cooperate with New Delhi on the Kashmir attack investigation.

How is this not what the source said? Bless sins (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bless sins: My bad, I missed the second line with Palladino's statement. Feel free to add it back. —Gazoth (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis

Bless sins, your recent addition Pakistan banned the group in 2002, although some say ISI continues to provides it backing. However, Jaish-e-Mohammed has also attacked Pakistani military targets in the past. seems like synthesis to me. The BBC source states Unlike the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which unquestioningly follows the politically dominant Pakistan army's orders, the Jaish has not shrunk from attacking Pakistani military targets. which implies that ISI is not in total control of JeM. However, your placement appears to question the assertion of ISI backing to JeM, which was not called into question by the BBC source. —Gazoth (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you wish to reword this? The above is important because it adds nuance to the actual BBC view. Before it was added, the article said "BBC News has said that the involvement of the Jaish-e-Mohammed in the bombing "directly links" Pakistan to the attack" which is not the entirety of what BBC is saying.Bless sins (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it adding much nuance to that statement. The link is still unquestioned. If the statement said that ISI directed the attack, then such a statement could be qualified by this. —Gazoth (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are agreeing that there is no allegation that ISI ordered the attack, then what exactly is the "link"? Did ISI train the bomber? Did ISI provide him with the bomb (although Indian officials say the bomb was made inside India)?Bless sins (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The BBC source makes a clear argument. The link is that JeM, a Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group that is supported by ISI, whose leader Masood Azhar has been repeatedly shielded by Pakistan despite his past involvement in terror attacks, has claimed responsibility for the attack. —Gazoth (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly is the linkbetween JeM and Pakistan (who has banned JeM)? Is it that Masood Azhar is living in Pakistan? If so, then say that, instead of the ambiguous "linked to Pakistan". Because "linked to Pakistan" makes it sound as if BBC is accusing Pakistan of ordering the attack, when in fact the BBC is pointing out that JeM has even attacked Pakistan.Bless sins (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be going around in circles now. Pakistan's "ban" is only on paper, as shown in the three references before the statement under discussion. You are creating a straw man and attacking it. No reasonable person can conclude that a link has to necessarily mean that Pakistan ordered the attack. As I've already explained in my first comment here, the BBC source has never called Pakistan's association with JeM or ISI's support to it into question. Additionally, Jaish-e-Mohammed article states that JeM's attacks on Pakistani targets in 2002-04 were carried out by factions opposed to Azhar, who later joined TTP. The JeM that Azhar revived has little to do with the attacks. This discussion has gone on long enough and I haven't seen any justification to keep this sentence causing synthesis. —Gazoth (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a relevant quote from a relevant source. I have now placed it directly adjacent to where the BBC News source is used.[9] There can be no "synthesis" objections, since synthesis is to "combine material from multiple sources" (see WP:SYNTH). There are no multiple sources, just one source.Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are just wikilawyering here. The point of WP:SYNTH is to not reach or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. You cannot take two separate sentences dealing with different topics and combine them to imply an unstated conclusion. —Gazoth (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly am I reaching a conclusion that is not in the source? My addition is a copy of the source word for word. Previously you falsely accused me of misrepresenting sources (see Talk:2019_Pulwama_attack#"Source_says_nothing_of_the_sort").

If you still disagree, it is possible to seek help from Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.Bless sins (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, by combining both sentences you imply that the "link" is not strong due to JeM's previous attacks on Pakistan, but the source does not state that. You have questioned the link repeatedly here, and I have repeatedly explained to you why it cannot be put into question. If your intent is to question the link, can you explain exactly how the source questions the link? If your intent is to not question the link, can you explain why you put the sentences together? —Gazoth (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The source itself says "Unlike the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which unquestioningly follows the politically dominant Pakistan army's orders, the Jaish has not shrunk from attacking Pakistani military targets". It is clear BBC is arguing that JeM does not take orders from the Pakistan army, and as proof it is pointing out JeM's attack on the Pakistan army. This part is important because it shows the relationship between JeM and Pakistan is fairly complicated.Bless sins (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, no that is definitely not what BBC is saying. BBC is saying that Jaish has not always taken orders from ISI, but as I've repeatedly told you, a link does not necessarily mean that ISI ordered the attack. You're misinterpreting the phrase "direct link" and to correct this misinterpretation you have brought in a phrase from another paragraph, while ignoring that your addition causes synthesis of the source. —Gazoth (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be saying similar things, but in different words:

Me: "BBC is arguing that JeM does not take orders from the Pakistan army"

You: "BBC is saying that Jaish has not always taken orders from ISI"

I have two questions for you:

1) do you agree that the main reason for the allegation against Pakistan is because of Pakistan's relationship with JeM?

2) are JeM's attacks on Pakistan relevant to the relationship between Pakistan and JeM?

Bless sins (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, how exactly is "does not take orders" same as "has not always taken orders"? As for your questions, your second question is way too broad. We are not writing an article on Jaish-e-Mohammed; JeM's attacks on Pakistan is relevant to this topic only if it changed the relationship in any meaningful way or if the reasons that prompted the attack are still relevant today.

The answer for the first question is no, as ISI and Pakistan's support to Masood Azhar and JeM still continues. As for the second question, as I mentioned before, JeM's attacks on Pakistani targets in 2002-04 were carried out by factions opposed to Azhar, who later left JeM and joined TTP. Azhar has always stayed loyal to Paksitan/ISI and he is the one who is in full control of JeM today. —Gazoth (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bless sins,by ur saying/argument fact does not change.all world well know that 'who support terrorist','where terrorist live freely' it dont need any proof. -User:indiamerijaan2001

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

BBC News article talks about JeM attacking Pakistan military targets, not Azhar himself attacking them, so that may be the case. However, it mentions it in relation to the Pulwama attack, so obviously BBC News considers it relevant information. BBC says "Pakistan's ... ISI faces a conundrum with regard to the Jaish," before listing the attacks by JeM on Pakistan. The verb tense of "faces" is in present.Bless sins (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of rebuttal

Why was this removed?[10] The Dawn article directly rebuts India's claim that Pakistan's PM had not offered condolences, when, in fact, the FM had. Removing this, while leaving the Indian claim in is a violation of WP:NPOV.Bless sins (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. How does foreign minister saying something invalidate the claim that the prime minister didn't say it? —Gazoth (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Every person in the cabinet will obviously not express condolences. The argument is that a high-ranking member of the Pakistani cabinet did express sympathy. It is not up to you to decide if the argument is "weak" or not, that is WP:NOR. A major Pakistani newspaper has made it, so it must be given due space.Bless sins (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, there will always be lots of reactions to statements by world leaders. Nothing automatically deserves an inclusion unless it can be justified. A lack of condemnation or sympathetic words in Imran Khan's speech was conspicuous by its absence. What Dawn stated was essentially a misdirection, as it does not contradict the claim in the Indian statement. The choice to or not to condemn or offer sympathetic words in such speeches is not made lightly, it is always a deliberate choice. —Gazoth (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the choice is made deliberately, and Pakistan made that choice when its FM expressed sympathy for the victims. And a major Pakistani newspaper pointed this out in direct response to India's criticism.Bless sins (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, if you agree that the choice was made deliberately, why mention Qureshi again? His condemnation has already been mentioned in the previous paragraph. Dawn is just misdirecting by brushing aside this deliberate choice. —Gazoth (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: It has been added again. 180.151.77.56 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, but I'm not going to engage in an edit war. —Gazoth (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose seeking dispute resolution methods.Bless sins (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That really isn't necessary. Just write something like "Indian newspaper X noted that Khan did not express his condolences, while Pakistani newspaper Dawn stated the Foreign Minister's word was a sufficient response [If that is directly stated in the source, of course]. I would be more in favour of removing the source, though, as it just sounds like Indian and Pakistani newspapers defending their countries. 2.51.20.34 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It was not an Indian newspaper that made the remark, it was the official response from Indian Ministry of External Affairs to Imran Khan's speech. —Gazoth (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

style="text-align:right"| @Gazoth ur right.imran khan must sympthy for victims

Azhar

Any way to integrate this source into the article? ∯WBG^converse 08:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

About changing name

For sympthy of sodiers and their family can we add 'shaheed' in place of killed? Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Indiamerijaan2001: No, we do not use value-laden labels like martyr or shaheed as per WP:LABEL. —Gazoth (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

What vehicle was used

There is no citation showing that it was a Mahindra Scorpio. This article says it is a Maruti Eeco. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nia-says-close-to-solving-case-finds-clear-pakistan-link-in-pulwama-attack/story-etgjHCBy8DehwTpvHL9HPO.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed to car because references differ.-Nizil (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Add information about retaliatory air strikes by the Indian Air Force on February 26/ 2019 Ayonpradhan (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Aftermath: Did India strike a terrorist camp base? This is only Indian claim. Pakistan only agrees Indian jets crossed LoC but claims there was no attack and the payload was dropped "in haste" when Indian flights were escaping after PAF scrambled their own jets. The claim that a terrorist camp was attacked should be removed as it is not yet established. https://www.dawn.com/news/1466038/indian-aircraft-violate-loc-scramble-back-after-pafs-timely-response-ispr Libin Scaria (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 12:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkey

This edit[11] is misleading because Turkey also expressed support for Pakistan. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to mention the condemnation but not its support for Pakistan.Bless sins (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Kapur's views

Kapur blames both India and Pakistan for the insurgency that started in the 1980s. He clearly accuses India of starting it by rigging elections, and clearly accuses Pakistan of backing it. Hence, edits in which his blame of India is considered "alleged", but his blame of Pakistan is taken at face value, are not appropriate.Bless sins (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth:, since the editor added Kapur to the article.

@Winged Blades of Godric:, since the user made the change.Bless sins (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: you removed the cause, which is sourced to a reliable source, without any discussion? I tried initiating discussion here with you and you never responded, instead you went ahead and reverted?[12] This is bad faith.Bless sins (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, I thought the edit summary was sufficient explanation. The other source that I added, Ganguly 1996, provides a very different explanation for the cause of insurgency, which contradicted the wikitext. Since the two cited sources have different explanations, the material cannot be retained as-is.

You added "one scholar says" which would be weasel wording as the views of Pakistan being a revisionist state and India being a status quo state are widely held. While evaluating additional sources to add here, I saw that attribution of the cause of insurgency to just election rigging was contradicted by many other sources and so I removed it. —Gazoth (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Who contradicts it? In fact, you added Ganguly. Even he supports this on page 105 of his article. He says that:

"The extensive electoral malfeasances that they witnessed in 1987 convinced this younger generation of Kashmiris that the national government in New delhi had scant regard for their political rights and reckless disregard for democratic procedures. With no other institutional recourse open for expressing their disenchantment with the flawed political process, they resorted to violence. The insurgency has taken the lives of tens of thousands, forced hundreds of thousands from their homes and shows no sign of abating." Source: Explaining the Kashmir Insurgency: Political Mobilization and Institutional Decay by Šumit Ganguly.

This is a source that you added to the article. Much like the Kapur source. Both sources you added to the article, both blame the insurgency on the rigging of 1987 elections.Bless sins (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And even if you see a contradiction of sources, WP:NPOV requires you to report all significant viewpoints.Bless sins (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, skipping all viewpoints and leaving something unmentioned does not contradict WP:NPOV. —Gazoth (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, you are selectively quoting the paper. It goes into much more detail into the cause of insurgency. Attributing it to just 1987 elections would effectively contradict the rest of the paper. He summarizes his explanation in page 91 as:

I argue that the Kashmiri insurgency arose out of a process of political mobilization that was juxtaposed with steady institutional decay. The political mobilization of Kashmiris started later than in the rest of the Indian state, but it accelerated dramatically after the 1970s. Institutional decay in Kashmir began as early as the 1950s, much earlier than in the rest of India. These two trends intersected as a new generation of Kashmiris emerged on the political scene.

Others such as Ashutosh Varshney and Praveen Swami and provided different explanations, and summarizing them in a single line is impossible. I don't see why leaving the cause unmentioned is such an issue. The conflict between Pakistan and India was exacerbated by the former's support to the insurgency, which is why it is quite important to mention it. The specific cause attributed varies between sources and leaving it unmentioned does not adversely affect on a reader's understanding about reasons for conflict between India and Pakistan. —Gazoth (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Solely blaming Pakistan for the insurgency is biased and a violation of WP:NPOV several reliable sources are saying that Indians actions are also be blamed. Ganguly mentions many causes, but that doesn't mean that India's rigging isn't one of the causes or doesn't deserve to be mentioned. Obviously both Pakistani and Indian actions are relevant to this article.Bless sins (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, where exactly has been Pakistan blamed for the insurgency? The text does not say or imply that Pakistani actions caused the insurgency. —Gazoth (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It says Pakistan provided material support. While that is attributable to reliable sources, but so is the statement that "India's rigging of the 1987 elections was a major cause of the insurgency".Bless sins (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, as explained earlier in the discussion, that text would not be an accurate summary of the different viewpoints on the cause of the insurgency. Mentioning that Pakistan provided material support to the insurgency in no way blames it on Pakistan. —Gazoth (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have given you an exact quote from Ganguly and can give you an exact quote from Kapur. You have not provided any evidence which either says that India did not rig the elections, or that Indian rigging of elections was not a cause of the insurgency.Bless sins (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, that is because I'm not saying that it did not. I'm saying that there are different viewpoints on the cause of insurgency and the text that you're adding is not an accurate summary of that. You seem to think that a mention of Pakistani support to the insurgency has to balanced by a mention of Indian action that caused the insurgency, but that is not how WP:NPOV works. If a cause is mentioned which not an accurate summary of the different viewpoints, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. —Gazoth (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Then what is an accurate summary of the viewpoints? I'm open to different wordings, as long as relevant information is not deleted from the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins, your edits to this article since this discussion began have been totally undue and seems to reflect a battleground attitude. You are loading the section with one particular viewpoint, just to retaliate against my removal of your phrase. You have even cited a personal opinion as a source for text in wikivoice. This is getting out of hand. —Gazoth (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not make accusations. If there is some content you disagree with, start a discussion in a different section on this page.Bless sins (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise I propose, "One of the causes of the insurgency was India's rigging of the 1987 elections." Hopefully that will be satisfactory, though "one of the causes" is unnecessary.Bless sins (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Majority of militants are local

There are many sources that say that majority of militants in Indian Kashmir are of local and not foreign origin. Some of these are Indian sources.

• In 2016: "In addition, a majority of current terrorists in Kashmir are not foreign, but local fighters. According to the state’s Home Department, North Kashmir has 66 local and 44 foreign terrorists, whereas South Kashmir has 109 locals and seven foreign terrorists." Narain, A. (2016). Revival of Violence in Kashmir: The Threat to India’s Security. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 8(7), 15-20.
• In 2016: "This time the militancy is homegrown. The majority of them [militants] are motivated from within, using the social media and all that. Earlier it was largely instigated from or sponsored from Pakistan." In BBC News[13] The quote is by MM Ansari, former Indian Information Commissioner[14]
• In 2018: "Now, the resistance inside the Indian areas is overwhelmingly homegrown." New York Times,[15]
• In 2018: '"As many as 243 terrorists are operating in Kashmir valley and of these, 59 militants are foreigners", a senior Police officer told PTI quoting official statistics. Besides, 15 terrorists are operating in Jammu region, it said, adding a total of 188 locals and 70 foreign terrorists are operating in the entire Jammu and Kashmir.' in India Today[16]
• In 2019: "He added that most militants in Kashmir are now “homegrown,” not slipping across the border from Pakistan." Rahul Bedi, military analyst with Jane’s Information Group, in New York Times[17]

Bless sins (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiris want to have Independent state, not a part of Ind or Pak. Atleast 85% valley want Independnet statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undertaker fan tombstone (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Insurgency rise

@Gazoth: Can you explain the removal of the following content:[18]

In 2012, the insurgency dropped to an all time low. However, between 2014 and 2018, the Indian government reported a 176% rise in number of terror incidents.

A rising number of young locals from Indian administered Kashmir have joined the militancy.

The rise has been attributed to various Indian government policies, including its human rights abuses, and its "tough" response to protests.

All of the sources used here are reliable.Bless sins (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Bless sins, I have not removed the second line. BBC did not state that human rights abuses caused the rise from 2014, so it is WP:OR. The rest is undue as it states the line that was already present about insurgency rising in recent years following Wani's death in more words. —Gazoth (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2019

A change from The United States condemned the attack and added it would work with India in counterterrorism efforts; it singled out Pakistan for its alleged role in the attack.

to The United States condemned the attack and added it would work with India in counterterrorism efforts.

because the cited source does not mention anything regarding the second half of this sentence. Donkeykong91 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done, the offending phrase has been replaced. —Gazoth (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)